Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anacybele

The Race Issue: Is it going too far? Has Disney hopped on the train now too?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:

I've always hated the term "white privilege". It implies that white people are spoiled and considered an "elite class" instead of being considered the "default" citizen and makes it sound like white people have never truly earned anything on their own merit or have ever suffered.

 

16 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

Anyway, I hate the term "white privilege" the same as I hate any label that casts a net over a large group of people from all perspectives and walks of life.

I definitely disagree. As a white person, I find the term "privilege" very useful. I'm not sure why you're equating it with meaning spoiled, that's not what the word means. Outside social justice discussion, it's most likely to be used in contexts such as:

"I had the privilege of working with _____, who was both a great mentor to me and a great person" or
"_____ had the privilege of growing up in a stable, loving household"

Simply, a privileged person is one who is blessed with a fortunate circumstance. The point is that, living in the US (as well as similar countries such as my own), you are privileged to be a white person. It gives you advantages. This does not mean that you experience no hardships, nor that other people think you're some sort of spoiled brat; it just means that you're fortunate, and you should be aware of that. You can be an amazing saint of a human being and still be privileged. For me, learning about it opened me eyes to the lack of privilege others had and helped me see their struggles as real even though they were things I hadn't personally experienced.

I think the word puts it about as succinctly and non-judgementaly as could be asked for, so I don't think the word is a problem. Rather, I think the problem is that some people are made uncomfortable by the knowledge of their own privelege and react negatively to anything trying to draw their attention to it. I think it's worth some introspection and discussion to figure out if that applies to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AlexArtsHere said:

Basic example, a white person and a black person each apply for the same job with the same qualifications and the same performance in the interview. If the white person gets chosen for that job because the colour of their skin leads them to be viewed more favourably in the eyes of the person responsible for hiring (either intentionally or unintentionally), that's them benefiting from white privilege. It's not they're fault, they're not bad for being white, but it's an illustration of how deeply embedded racism and white privilege is into not only the U.S., but the U.K. and parts of Europe too.

It goes deeper! If they're "stereotypically black names" on an application, it's less likely to be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. It's why the VA industry for example will assign generic numbers to auditions sometimes. As I've said previously in the thread, I'm not somebody who is directly affected by systemic racism as I am white, so anyone more informed or experienced than I should absolutely expand upon and correct me where appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, UNLEASH IT said:

Maybe being the default is a privilege in and of itself. Racial stereotypes can't really stick to you if you're not seen as a race to begin with.

Nah, even mixed-race people get shit on once certain people figure out you're mixed race. It's usually the racial supremacy extremists who do this. (Black or White supremacists. Haven't seen Asian supremacists, funny enough.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:

- don't people understand the basic concept that demonizing and shamelessly hating people tends to drive them away from your cause? 

If you read up on the first two or three pages, this argument has been addressed, and promptly discarded for the abject rubbish that it is.

Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been crazy active on this site in a while, so checking in and seeing "The Race Issue" made me do a double take. It's like a half-step away from seeing a threat titled "The Jewish Question".

Seriously, Ana. Just take a few steps back and try to look at it from a different perspective. This whole argument comes across as extremely sheltered and ill-informed at best, and down right malicious at worst. This same argument was happening 60 years ago. Your "Why do they really have to target the things I like?" is the 2020 version of "Why do they have to be so uppity?" comments from frigid housewives during the Civil Rights protests.

Black people are being murdered for essentially no reason by a militarized police force that is completely above the law and see themselves as warriors rather than protectors. They're still largely being marginalized in media and the country is being run by a white supremacist who used the police to attack protesters so he could do an awkward photo op in front of a church. And yes, he's a fucking white supremacist. He tweeted a video of some old white dude shouting "White power!" just a few days ago. He just put out merch for his 2020 campaign that parodies the goddamn Nazi Reichsadler. Sorry you voted for a white supremacist, but you did. He wasn't very secretive about it back then, what with having Steve fucking Bannon on his campaign team in 2016, but he's really blatant about it now.

So no, it's not going too far. You're going to have to deal with some of the consequences of uncomfortable(To you) protests by groups who are desperately trying to do everything they can to show the rest of the country that they're people, too. It must totally suck for you that some stupid ride at Disney is being changed, but I'm sure you'll get over it. Or you'll just die bitter over some ride not having a racist minstrel song anymore, I don't know.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will happen is the protests will be used as a scapegoat for corrupt or misinformed people to use against minorities anyway. It is an endless cycle.

Highly doubt racism stops anytime soon, if ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FuckerOfFucks said:

What will happen is the protests will be used as a scapegoat for corrupt or misinformed people to use against minorities anyway. It is an endless cycle.

Highly doubt racism stops anytime soon, if ever.

Not with that defeatist attitude. Bad as things are, they're still hugely improved over what they were 50 years ago. Things have gotten better and as long as we put the effort in they will keep getting better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Slumber said:

I haven't been crazy active on this site in a while, so checking in and seeing "The Race Issue" made me do a double take. It's like a half-step away from seeing a threat titled "The Jewish Question".

honestly i almost kneejerk locked the thread, but decided to leave it open because people were having good, honest takes to drop and were (largely) behaving themselves. but i had literally the same reaction.

 

9 hours ago, AlexArtsHere said:

Not with that defeatist attitude.

without directly @ing the guy who you're responding to, this is my response to this and a shitload of other things. yeah, rainbow capitalism is a thing, but take a moment to reflect on the fact that huge faceless corporations that commit war crimes find it more profitable to do rainbow capitalism than to do nothing about it. if doing minstrel show caricatures were profitable, they would absolutely hop on that, but it isn't anymore, because shit is better than it used to be. it's improving, however slowly, even though it obviously should be improving faster. we still have racists, and they absolutely have this cool new internet to coordinate their hatecrimes, but the people who hate the racists have access to all the same tools and are generally smarter, more numerous, and just as angry.

Edited by Integrity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2020 at 12:51 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

I definitely disagree. As a white person, I find the term "privilege" very useful. I'm not sure why you're equating it with meaning spoiled, that's not what the word means. Outside social justice discussion, it's most likely to be used in contexts such as:

"I had the privilege of working with _____, who was both a great mentor to me and a great person" or
"_____ had the privilege of growing up in a stable, loving household"

Simply, a privileged person is one who is blessed with a fortunate circumstance. The point is that, living in the US (as well as similar countries such as my own), you are privileged to be a white person. It gives you advantages. This does not mean that you experience no hardships, nor that other people think you're some sort of spoiled brat; it just means that you're fortunate, and you should be aware of that. You can be an amazing saint of a human being and still be privileged. For me, learning about it opened me eyes to the lack of privilege others had and helped me see their struggles as real even though they were things I hadn't personally experienced.

I think the word puts it about as succinctly and non-judgementaly as could be asked for, so I don't think the word is a problem. Rather, I think the problem is that some people are made uncomfortable by the knowledge of their own privelege and react negatively to anything trying to draw their attention to it. I think it's worth some introspection and discussion to figure out if that applies to you.

I see where you are coming from. In several ways, I agree. You don't get to choose the cards you were given in life, and the deck is often unfair, but you can decide what to do with the hand and opportunities you are given. While circumstances do matter, I would say that the actions taken in response to the opportunities one has far greater impact, as that determines and builds a person's character. I won't pretend that race isn't a factor, but it is up to the individual as to whether or not they will let that influence their decisions.

 

I will say that "spoiled" didn't come to mind regarding the phrase "privileged". The opposite, actually. It could be seen as telling someone "you didn't receive an education, get hired for a job, or earn a promotion because you worked hard. You got it because you were white." This could be considered an extreme interpretation,  but on some level that is what the phrase is saying. Perhaps race will always be a factor, but it is far from the only one in a person's life, and its influence can be nonexistent in a multitude of situations.

This is part of the reason I am wary towards labels and such, as they tend to oversimplify matters that have a multitude of aspects to them. "White Privilege" is mostly being utilized in a matter-of-fact manner in the current topic, yet I have no difficulty seeing it applied as an excuse to blame race as the main reason some people are in better situations than others, when it is never that simple. Especially given how polarized our current political and social environment is, it is far too common to see any side make absolutes about another. Heck, in this very thread, there have been some pretty strong summations of republicans and the police, when there are several individuals in either group whose actions speak to the contrary just as there are people who fit the descriptions like a glove.

 

All that said, I still dislike the term, but I do appreciate the different perspective. It caused me to think about the topic for a good while, and my post went through a few revisions because of that. Ever since I was a child, I never saw a difference between races, and never saw a reason to treat anyone differently because of it. I knew full well how prevalent racism is throughout history, yet I took that as a lesson that everyone is human, equally capable of virtue and vice, and that treating people differently based on the color of their skin was pointless and destructive. I wouldn't say I am "proud" for sticking by this principle, as I believe it should be the default stance on the matter for every human being.

Yet these current protests did get me thinking if this stance had a few blind spots that I wasn't aware of before. That because I strived to not take aspects such as race, gender, and so on into the equation when interacting with others, instead putting more stock into a person's character, that I didn't take into consideration the moments when others didn't share this viewpoint. That not caring about race caused me to overlook the times it may have been a factor in another's life. My stance on treating people equally remains unshaken, yet again, I do have to thank you for giving me food for thought. It was a good topic to reflecting on, and I will keep these different viewpoints in mind.

On 7/2/2020 at 12:50 PM, AlexArtsHere said:

Basic example, a white person and a black person each apply for the same job with the same qualifications and the same performance in the interview. If the white person gets chosen for that job because the colour of their skin leads them to be viewed more favourably in the eyes of the person responsible for hiring (either intentionally or unintentionally), that's them benefiting from white privilege. It's not they're fault, they're not bad for being white, but it's an illustration of how deeply embedded racism and white privilege is into not only the U.S., but the U.K. and parts of Europe too.

Replace skin color with gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, and so on, and this example extends beyond just race. Regardless of the difference(s) between the two people, this kind of situation is easily muddled. Sometimes the white person is hired because they were more qualified for the job, other times it is because of racism. It may even be both in some cases. Regardless of the reason, it is easy to twist the situation to make it appear that the other person didn't get the job because of the color of their skin, regardless of the other factors in play. This either leads to a corporation being rightfully criticized for racism, or it gives unwarranted infamy to a company that is difficult, if not in some cases impossible, to get rid of.

The opposite situation can also be the case. The company may hire the black person over the white person due to having higher qualifications, or they may give them the job in order to fulfill a quota, or both. And just like the previous situation, it is easy to frame someone being hired to appease a certain group over their actual abilities, regardless of what the case may actually be.

This situation extends beyond job interviews. While far from the only industry where this takes place, it is especially noticeable in the entertainment field. There are a multitude of products out there that have been criticized for their implementation, or lack thereof, of race, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, etc. Sometimes these criticisms are well founded, other time it might be complaining about an aspect that doesn't directly impact the story at all, and sometimes the situation came about due to a lack of time/resources and/or gameplay balance instead of malevolent views on the creators behalf.

Disney remodeling Splash mountain as mentioned in the original post could be seen as a variant of this. Roller coasters getting a new coat of paint is common in the industry, yet Disney's timing makes it appear that the decision was done to get on the good side of certain groups. It is possible that they were planning the change for some time and made the announcement when they were confident they had enough resources to do so. It is suspect that they made the decision during the current social climate, but it would be far from the first case of odd timing. Their rather clumsy handling of LGBT content recently doesn't do them any favors, which lends itself to the point I am trying to make. That there are often several factors involved in situations like these, which not only affect the decisions made by those in charge but also how others react to the news and what viewpoint they take. Analyzing the context to find the truth is perhaps the best course of action in these kind of circumstances, but rarely is that a quick or simple process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Replace skin color with gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, and so on, and this example extends beyond just race.

Yeah and then it becomes another form of privilege which usually benefits white, cisgendered heterosexual males. You make it sound like white privilege is a curse for White people, and while sure you can see it as someone’s work being overlooked for their skin colour, at least when it happens to white people they still get those opportunities.

And I can absolutely guarantee minority people being casted in entertainment for their skin colour happens on an extremely infrequent basis because the entertainment industry is stills dominated by White people, specifically white men. Sure, some tokenism occurs but to imply it’s a widespread practice then diminishes the work of the minorities who have been given those opportunities.

And at the end of the day you’re still arguing semantics and distracting for the real issue which is that white privilege exists systemically, regardless of what name it goes by and whether or not you like that name. If we put more time into solving that issue rather than talking about how we don’t like the name of the concept, said concept would sooner cease to exist and any dissatisfaction with the name would be redundant anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlexArtsHere said:

If we put more time into solving that issue rather than talking about how we don’t like the name of the concept, said concept would sooner cease to exist and any dissatisfaction with the name would be redundant anyway.

If this were a congressional hearing, the emphasized phrase would most likely be considered a form of filibustering. When you are discussing something as rudimentary as the outright fuckery of people of color through the centuries, any further talk of semantics goes out the door. The fact that some people give it more than a passing glance is indicative of being clueless at best, and acting in bad faith at worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

I see where you are coming from. In several ways, I agree. You don't get to choose the cards you were given in life, and the deck is often unfair, but you can decide what to do with the hand and opportunities you are given. While circumstances do matter, I would say that the actions taken in response to the opportunities one has far greater impact, as that determines and builds a person's character. I won't pretend that race isn't a factor, but it is up to the individual as to whether or not they will let that influence their decisions.

I will say that "spoiled" didn't come to mind regarding the phrase "privileged". The opposite, actually. It could be seen as telling someone "you didn't receive an education, get hired for a job, or earn a promotion because you worked hard. You got it because you were white." This could be considered an extreme interpretation,  but on some level that is what the phrase is saying. Perhaps race will always be a factor, but it is far from the only one in a person's life, and its influence can be nonexistent in a multitude of situations.

This is part of the reason I am wary towards labels and such, as they tend to oversimplify matters that have a multitude of aspects to them. "White Privilege" is mostly being utilized in a matter-of-fact manner in the current topic, yet I have no difficulty seeing it applied as an excuse to blame race as the main reason some people are in better situations than others, when it is never that simple. Especially given how polarized our current political and social environment is, it is far too common to see any side make absolutes about another.

Terms only oversimplify matters when people have simplified understanding of those terms. White privilege is easy to sum up, but there's a lot to unpack because of how far reaching the effects of racism are. Some of the issues present reach back decades or centuries, and resolving them requires, at the very least, identifying how those issues play out.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Heck, in this very thread, there have been some pretty strong summations of republicans and the police, when there are several individuals in either group whose actions speak to the contrary just as there are people who fit the descriptions like a glove.

This isn't as strong a point as you seem to think it is. People don't choose to be black, or female, or gay, etc, and among those groups there's a tremendous degree of diversity. But people do choose to be republicans or police. While their ideologies and intentions aren't uniform between members of either group, they are both, at their core, groups designed to wield power over others. That these two groups also are overwhelmingly controlled by people using that power violently and cruelly means that anyone else in that group is, to at least some degree, enabling that cruelty.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

All that said, I still dislike the term, but I do appreciate the different perspective. It caused me to think about the topic for a good while, and my post went through a few revisions because of that. Ever since I was a child, I never saw a difference between races, and never saw a reason to treat anyone differently because of it. I knew full well how prevalent racism is throughout history, yet I took that as a lesson that everyone is human, equally capable of virtue and vice, and that treating people differently based on the color of their skin was pointless and destructive. I wouldn't say I am "proud" for sticking by this principle, as I believe it should be the default stance on the matter for every human being.

Yet these current protests did get me thinking if this stance had a few blind spots that I wasn't aware of before. That because I strived to not take aspects such as race, gender, and so on into the equation when interacting with others, instead putting more stock into a person's character, that I didn't take into consideration the moments when others didn't share this viewpoint. That not caring about race caused me to overlook the times it may have been a factor in another's life. My stance on treating people equally remains unshaken, yet again, I do have to thank you for giving me food for thought. It was a good topic to reflecting on, and I will keep these different viewpoints in mind.

It's good to acknowledge your blindspots and question your behavior regularly. Lots of people don't want to do that, and we all suffer for it. One thing to keep in mind is that black people don't get the ability to not think about race. A black person is confronted for their race in everything, whether normal everyday life like going to the store, or major milestones like college applications. When a white person says "I don't see race", what they're effectively saying is "I don't want to think/talk about racism", especially the racism that they may be guilty of or benefiting from.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Replace skin color with gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, and so on, and this example extends beyond just race. Regardless of the difference(s) between the two people, this kind of situation is easily muddled. Sometimes the white person is hired because they were more qualified for the job, other times it is because of racism. It may even be both in some cases. Regardless of the reason, it is easy to twist the situation to make it appear that the other person didn't get the job because of the color of their skin, regardless of the other factors in play. This either leads to a corporation being rightfully criticized for racism, or it gives unwarranted infamy to a company that is difficult, if not in some cases impossible, to get rid of.

Hiring people is an extremely subjective process. It's not like people have RPG stats that you compare and calculate. Being "more qualified" is ambiguous; keep in mind that the impacts of racism aren't limited to "we picked the white guy over the black guy". Black people deal with extra hurdles throughout their entire lives. To have a practically identical resume as a white person requires the black person to do more or endure worse at nearly every turn.

There are also some shady practices like pulling the listing and editing the requirements to match a specific applicant, so that they're the only one technically qualified, even if others who previously applied were as well. This is just one way people try to sweep their racism under a rug.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

The opposite situation can also be the case. The company may hire the black person over the white person due to having higher qualifications, or they may give them the job in order to fulfill a quota, or both. And just like the previous situation, it is easy to frame someone being hired to appease a certain group over their actual abilities, regardless of what the case may actually be.

Part of the reasoning behind Affirmative Action is that having a more diverse workplace is in the organization's best interest, as it means the workers have different perspectives to offer. It's also less about trying to "appease" groups and acknowledging that the markets/systems/etc favor straight white cis men over anyone else in basically every metric.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

This situation extends beyond job interviews. While far from the only industry where this takes place, it is especially noticeable in the entertainment field. There are a multitude of products out there that have been criticized for their implementation, or lack thereof, of race, gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, etc. Sometimes these criticisms are well founded, other time it might be complaining about an aspect that doesn't directly impact the story at all, and sometimes the situation came about due to a lack of time/resources and/or gameplay balance instead of malevolent views on the creators behalf.

If race/gender/sexuality/etc play a role in the story, then they should be cast appropriately. If not, there's no reason to not have diverse casting or characters. Having diverse casts helps normalize diversity. Development issues are a pretty weak excuse as for why there isn't more diversity. The bottom line is that the developers chose to skip over making diverse characters in favor of something else, which is very likely stemming from the lack of diversity in the industry.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Disney remodeling Splash mountain as mentioned in the original post could be seen as a variant of this. Roller coasters getting a new coat of paint is common in the industry, yet Disney's timing makes it appear that the decision was done to get on the good side of certain groups. It is possible that they were planning the change for some time and made the announcement when they were confident they had enough resources to do so. It is suspect that they made the decision during the current social climate, but it would be far from the first case of odd timing. Their rather clumsy handling of LGBT content recently doesn't do them any favors, which lends itself to the point I am trying to make. That there are often several factors involved in situations like these, which not only affect the decisions made by those in charge but also how others react to the news and what viewpoint they take. Analyzing the context to find the truth is perhaps the best course of action in these kind of circumstances, but rarely is that a quick or simple process.

It's absolutely fair and right to not trust brands and companies (they're not your friends), but hey, a win is a win. If they remove racist thing, it still has a positive impact on the world, even if it was done for selfish reasons. Bottom line is impacts over intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AlexArtsHere said:

You make it sound like white privilege is a curse for White people

Not a curse, but it could be seen as an excuse to diminish the work someone did simply because of their race. Or the opposite side, saying that someone had a door of opportunity close on an opportunity solely because of their race. I am far from saying race is not a factor, but considering it the only one is a pointlessly limiting viewpoint to apply to every situation. Hence why I believe these situations should be analyzed, but it much easier to judge based on appearances.

I suppose I should just say outright that I distrust any label, given how abusable they are, even when they have some degree of accuracy. Call it disillusionment from how polarized our current political and social climate is and how difficult it is to find a middle ground. Again. it is being used appropriately in this context, but it could easily be a different story in another one.

11 hours ago, AlexArtsHere said:

And I can absolutely guarantee minority people being casted in entertainment for their skin colour happens on an extremely infrequent basis because the entertainment industry is stills dominated by White people, specifically white men. Sure, some tokenism occurs but to imply it’s a widespread practice then diminishes the work of the minorities who have been given those opportunities.

I am not in the entertainment industry, so I am not privy to how frequent hiring based on race is. I do know that casting someone for their abilities over their appearance is far from uncommon. Execution matters most at the end of the day, and tokenisms are rightfully a frequent topic of criticism in today's day and age.

Since it was brought up, I do want to mention that simply because a field may be historicallu dominated by a certain group does not mean that said group is hostile towards diversity. I've taken several college classes in the field of manufacturing and worked in a few industrial jobs that were historically male dominated, yet still had a number of female employees/students. There was no hostility towards this minority by coworkers and those in charge, even though male employees outnumbered them. Being accepting towards a group does not immediately result in an even ratio, as that takes time to occur, which is something I've seen some groups struggle to understand.

11 hours ago, AlexArtsHere said:

And at the end of the day you’re still arguing semantics and distracting for the real issue which is that white privilege exists systemically, regardless of what name it goes by and whether or not you like that name. If we put more time into solving that issue rather than talking about how we don’t like the name of the concept, said concept would sooner cease to exist and any dissatisfaction with the name would be redundant anyway.

And I'm not in charge of any corporations and I can't make any laws. It's a stupidly simple change to remove race, gender, nationality, religion, and so on from the equation, and every employee handbook I've seen points that out. Enforcing it is the difficult part, as there is always going to be at least one person against change.

I can choose as an individual not to care about a persons appearance and instead care about their character, as that's what truly matters at the end of the day. I won't be changing society or the political landscape, but I can decide how I personally act. This is something shared between every single human being on the face of the planet.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

This isn't as strong a point as you seem to think it is. People don't choose to be black, or female, or gay, etc, and among those groups there's a tremendous degree of diversity. But people do choose to be republicans or police. While their ideologies and intentions aren't uniform between members of either group, they are both, at their core, groups designed to wield power over others. That these two groups also are overwhelmingly controlled by people using that power violently and cruelly means that anyone else in that group is, to at least some degree, enabling that cruelty.

That was more a point about how absolute a viewpoint about a group can be, regardless of the variances of the people within said group. I suppose I didn't make that aspect clear enough. Point is, the same attitudes can be leveled at groups that didn't choose their lot in life as much as organizations made up of all kinds of people.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

When a white person says "I don't see race", what they're effectively saying is "I don't want to think/talk about racism", especially the racism that they may be guilty of or benefiting from.

Couldn't that itself be considered a racist statement? That it is supposedly impossible for white people to not be racist about anything? That someone with white skin can't ignore the pointless physical attributes about another person and instead care about about the qualities that actually matter?

Perhaps that wasn't what you were aiming at, yet the attitude that one can't be racist or sexist towards a majority still exists, and it simply flips the problem instead of actually solving anything.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

If race/gender/sexuality/etc play a role in the story, then they should be cast appropriately. If not, there's no reason to not have diverse casting or characters. Having diverse casts helps normalize diversity.

Oh I most certainly agree. There really is no excuse to have diverse casts in this day and age, although execution of the concept obviously varies between works. Historical works with an aim of accuracy is perhaps the only field that can "get away" with supposedly racist or sexist casting (or at least, it receives the least amount of criticism for doing so).

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Development issues are a pretty weak excuse as for why there isn't more diversity. The bottom line is that the developers chose to skip over making diverse characters in favor of something else, which is very likely stemming from the lack of diversity in the industry.

Models take time and money to create, voice actors aren't cheap, and characterization goes out the window on the competitive scene, among a plethora of other elements that go into making sure a game runs and is fun to play. Of course, it is always a good idea to design a game with diversity in mind, yet so much goes into the development process that not every idea can come to fruition. There are a lot of legitimate issues that developers have to face that would sound like lazy excuses in a different field. It is entirely possible to aim at something and miss the mark due to factors outside the creators control, with no hostile intent on their part.

On the flip side, a game having great diversity does not always mean it is fun to play or well-designed, even if said diversity can still be a positive element that draws people to a game. There are enough examples where the gameplay sucks yet other elements such as the story, characters, music, art style, and so on still get people interested. It is awesome when a game manages to achieve this diversity while also having excellent gameplay, but considering how many games out there have excellent ideas yet don't always execute them well, this is far easier said than done.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

It's absolutely fair and right to not trust brands and companies (they're not your friends), but hey, a win is a win.

I never trusted any large group to have the common persons best interests in mind, hence why I stopped giving a crap about politics and why I've accepted that scummy business practices will always be a thing, even if it is a worthwhile fight to stamp it out. Learning that car companies are entirely willing to ignore known issues because it is easier to pay off lawsuits than fix the problem, even if it results in a number of deaths, will do that pretty quickly.

2 hours ago, Johann said:

Bottom line is impacts over intentions.

I see both productive and destructive qualities in this statement, though perhaps that's just my philosophers side coming out. I'll give it some thought before starting any debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys—imma make this real simple for u.

...white privilege doesn’t mean your life is easy.

...white privilege doesn’t mean you’ve never encountered hardships.

...white privilege doesn’t mean you’re gonna succeed at everything you try.

...white privilege doesn’t mean you’re never gonna get screwed by the system.

...white privilege doesn’t mean you’re never going to struggle.

———

White privilege means on top of all the other shit you have to deal with—the color of your skin hasn’t made your life harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering The Princess  and the Frog being the center of several racial controversies for Disney, as some groups accuse it of using black stereotypes, I have a hard time picturing this being something done because of racial tensions. For the most part, more people don't associate the current ride with the movie...

If anything, it looks like Disney is going to be opening theirself up to backlash instead.  

On 6/29/2020 at 12:44 PM, Johann said:

Keep in mind that one of core issues with these riots is that black people are being killed by police while doing normal everyday things like going to the store. You have a genuine privilege if you get to ignore the discussion and relax, when the victims of police violence and racists can't. In that sense, everything is inherently political, including the decision to stay out of it. That's not to say "oh, how dare you!" for finding it stressful, confusing, and not knowing how to approach it, but you'll be doing yourself a huge favor if you make efforts to educate yourself.

But that's not what's happening. George Floyd was being arrested on drug charges. The man shot outside of Wendy's beat a cop , stole his weapon, and then shot at him before the beaten officer opened fire (all of which is on camera). These aren't innocent men being killed. Admittedly, the death of George Floyd was wrong and the officers involved deserve to be punished, and charges were immediately being brought against them. Likewise for the officer who was violently assaulted and beaten, as well as against his partner. Something in which neither of them should have been charged with, and once that case is dropped, we can expect riots in outrage by people who don't care about the facts.

...not to say that there haven't been incidents wherein police haven't shot innocent people (such as the black psychologist who went above and beyond the call of duty a to help a mental patient & was non-fatally shot a few years ago). However, most people aren't rioting over the actual problems. They are using their prejudiced towards the police, blaming ALL cops because of the disgusting behavior of SOME cops, demanding wide sweeping reforms against ALL cops and harming homes, jobs, and businesses of the communities they attack.

On 7/2/2020 at 12:51 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

I definitely disagree. As a white person, I find the term "privilege" very useful. I'm not sure why you're equating it with meaning spoiled, that's not what the word means. Outside social justice discussion, it's most likely to be used in contexts such as:

"I had the privilege of working with _____, who was both a great mentor to me and a great person" or
"_____ had the privilege of growing up in a stable, loving household"

Simply, a privileged person is one who is blessed with a fortunate circumstance. The point is that, living in the US (as well as similar countries such as my own), you are privileged to be a white person. It gives you advantages. This does not mean that you experience no hardships, nor that other people think you're some sort of spoiled brat; it just means that you're fortunate, and you should be aware of that. You can be an amazing saint of a human being and still be privileged. For me, learning about it opened me eyes to the lack of privilege others had and helped me see their struggles as real even though they were things I hadn't personally experienced.

I think the word puts it about as succinctly and non-judgementaly as could be asked for, so I don't think the word is a problem. Rather, I think the problem is that some people are made uncomfortable by the knowledge of their own privelege and react negatively to anything trying to draw their attention to it. I think it's worth some introspection and discussion to figure out if that applies to you.

There is a difference between the word privileged and the concept that is white privileged.

Just because someone is of color, doesn't mean they will be poor, of a broken house, live in a bad area, suffer from a poor education, and so on. Likewise, just because someone is white doesn't mean they won't suffer from all of these things. If you are black and you go in a predominately white neighborhood, depending on the area, there is a chance police will single you out believing you are there to commit crimes, and in a like manner, if you are white and you go into a black neighborhood, depending on the area, there is a chance police will single you out, believing you are there to buy drugs. 

Though, this isn't to entirely deny the concept, but its highly flawed. Especially since it doesn't acknowledge that there are other types of privileges as well. 

18 hours ago, AlexArtsHere said:

Yeah and then it becomes another form of privilege which usually benefits white, cisgendered heterosexual males. You make it sound like white privilege is a curse for White people, and while sure you can see it as someone’s work being overlooked for their skin colour, at least when it happens to white people they still get those opportunities.

And I can absolutely guarantee minority people being casted in entertainment for their skin colour happens on an extremely infrequent basis because the entertainment industry is stills dominated by White people, specifically white men. Sure, some tokenism occurs but to imply it’s a widespread practice then diminishes the work of the minorities who have been given those opportunities.

And at the end of the day you’re still arguing semantics and distracting for the real issue which is that white privilege exists systemically, regardless of what name it goes by and whether or not you like that name. If we put more time into solving that issue rather than talking about how we don’t like the name of the concept, said concept would sooner cease to exist and any dissatisfaction with the name would be redundant anyway.

You'd be wrong about it not being a widespread practice. Multiple television channels are based around the practice, and certain conglomerates like Google have had very visible impacts on the entertainment industry & many have been critical of Google's practice because for the reason you mentioned.

In countries like the U.S., more whites are in the industry because:
1. There are more of them.
2. Archaism . Because they were able to establish a foothold during racist times.
3. There are more wealthy white people to fund things.
4. Social racism. A lot of people still dislike the idea of people of different colors mixing with one another, so in the event of a romance or couple, people of like skin colors are usually hired for the roles.

This however doesn't disprove the existence of said practice.

And its more than an issue of semantics. In fact, the concept tends to be rather racist. "Because someone is of a certain skin color they therefore have certain experiences" is a flawed assumption, and trying to solve something based around a flawed concept will often result in poor results.

8 hours ago, Johann said:

This isn't as strong a point as you seem to think it is. People don't choose to be black, or female, or gay, etc, and among those groups there's a tremendous degree of diversity. But people do choose to be republicans or police. While their ideologies and intentions aren't uniform between members of either group, they are both, at their core, groups designed to wield power over others. That these two groups also are overwhelmingly controlled by people using that power violently and cruelly means that anyone else in that group is, to at least some degree, enabling that cruelty.

It's good to acknowledge your blindspots and question your behavior regularly. Lots of people don't want to do that, and we all suffer for it. One thing to keep in mind is that black people don't get the ability to not think about race. A black person is confronted for their race in everything, whether normal everyday life like going to the store, or major milestones like college applications. When a white person says "I don't see race", what they're effectively saying is "I don't want to think/talk about racism", especially the racism that they may be guilty of or benefiting from.

Hiring people is an extremely subjective process. It's not like people have RPG stats that you compare and calculate. Being "more qualified" is ambiguous; keep in mind that the impacts of racism aren't limited to "we picked the white guy over the black guy". Black people deal with extra hurdles throughout their entire lives. To have a practically identical resume as a white person requires the black person to do more or endure worse at nearly every turn.

But they aren't. Your creating a false narrative to give credit to your false claims. While there have been a lot of corrupt individuals, they don't make up the majority. Some areas may even be overrun with corruption because crooked people allowed or helped a problem to grow & fester, but they still don't make up the majority.

The problems that do exist need to be solved, but wide sweeping changes against those who are not part of the problem are flawed. 

No. People aren't always confronted by there race. In certain areas its simply not important. (Though, regarding college applications, whites and Asians are disprivileged there. Personally, I can receive some nice scholarships thanks to my heritage that I wouldn't be able to receive if I was simply white.)

No. No. No. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they necessarily had to have such experiences. Likewise, just because someone is white doesn't mean they didn't have to deal with the hurdles you are assuming black people faced. You're buying into a false narrative you created.

Edited by killelall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Guys—imma make this real simple for u.

...white privilege doesn’t mean your life is easy.

...white privilege doesn’t mean you’ve never encountered hardships.

...white privilege doesn’t mean you’re gonna succeed at everything you try.

...white privilege doesn’t mean you’re never gonna get screwed by the system.

...white privilege doesn’t mean you’re never going to struggle.

———

White privilege means on top of all the other shit you have to deal with—the color of your skin hasn’t made your life harder.

I tried to explain it in my other post, but I couldn't word it right. This words it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, killelall said:

But that's not what's happening. George Floyd was being arrested on drug charges. The man shot outside of Wendy's beat a cop , stole his weapon, and then shot at him before the beaten officer opened fire (all of which is on camera). These aren't innocent men being killed. Admittedly, the death of George Floyd was wrong and the officers involved deserve to be punished, and charges were immediately being brought against them. Likewise for the officer who was violently assaulted and beaten, as well as against his partner. Something in which neither of them should have been charged with, and once that case is dropped, we can expect riots in outrage by people who don't care about the facts.

For starters, drug charges are bullshit and the drug war was brought about because Nixon wanted to beat down hippies and the black community. I can source this if you want.

Even if Floyd was being arrested on drug charges, who gives a fuck....

And then the next point is: the cops were called cuz he had a fraudulent 20 dollar bill. Even the store clerk regrets it.

Explain to me how ANY of this is relevant to the cruel and unusual death penalty he received? What the police did is literally a violation of what Americans hold fundamental to their land, what Floyd did is almost nothing.

 

The rest of your post is "how can white privilege exists if IM not racist and not all white people are rich!!!" Which is sidestepping how it's a large factor and not the end-all be-all. There's successful black people, that's great, but even successful black people are significantly less wealthy than successful white people. What false assumptions are being made? Collectivist statistics, legislation, and the fact that there's still blatant segregation contradicts every single point you just made. It really sounds like you just came on here to call black people shot by the police "thugs."

 

You're right; not all black people or white people have had this all-encompassing experience. Nobody is saying they did. We're making conclusions based on facts, tendencies, and statistics. That and a lot of legislation and police brutality is enacted precisely to make the black experience hell! Immigrants have a better opening slate moving into the US than black people do, and again I can source all this if you want. But to call it a 'false narrative' means that our Venn Diagram of reality are two circles, because white privilege is not a myth or an opinion.

28 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I tried to explain it in my other post, but I couldn't word it right. This words it right.

He's a lawyer, he's the most valuable person to explain concepts we've got, it's beautiful 

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they aren't. You are just pro-drug.

Drugs can ruin lives, and addictive drugs can cause even good people to commit crimes so they can obtain their fix. Their habits can bring harm to the people around them as well. (Personally, I had a family member who ruined their life and health due to their addiction. Since I was always at work for 15 hour shifts my house ended up getting taken over, leading me to losing almost everything and having to flee to & live in a trailer for years until I was able to repair the damage to my house so that I could move back into it after they left due to making it uninhabitable after having stripped it of the various metals within. (Though, admittedly the cops were useless throughout, claiming they couldn't do anything even while groups of people I didn't know were running a drug den and prostitution service in my house.))

--

The claim was innocent black men were being killed. Someone committing a crime is not an innocent man. The victims aren't just upstanding black men being unjustly targeted by police like Johann claimed. The victims were criminals. However, in George Floyd's case this doesn't change that their death was disgusting and unjustified. However, innocent black men should not expect to be plucked off the street by blood thirty men with badges.

Its not side stepping the issue. Its arguing the importance of accurate analysis so that problems can be solved properly. 

Read what I just quoted to see what false assumptions were being made. For example, "Black people deal with extra hurdles throughout their entire lives. To have a practically identical resume as a white person requires the black person to do more or endure worse at nearly every turn." 
Just as a black person can grow up in wealth or poverty, a white person can be as well. Just as a black person may or may not grow up in a broken house, the same applies to a white person. A black and white person may also attend the same schools, receiving the same education. Because someone is black does not mean they will encounter more hurdles at every turn, and just because someone is white doesn't mean they will avoid every hurdle. Ones race simply means one is statistically more likely to experience something. Not that they are guaranteed to. Johann's narrative made & relied upon a false assumption.

No they don't discredit the points I've made. They prove them. Though, in regards to segregation - your pretending it exists like it did back in the day is rather bogus. Where one lives is largely decided by money... that and the community within a city. (Which is more-so social rather than due to the government.)

At no point did I attempt to call black people shot by police thugs. I even brought up the black psychologist who was shot, so how about you quit making up lies in a pitiful attempt to discredit me.

Name some of this recent legislation that still exists.

Right. Its not a myth. In a like manner there is black privilege, native privilege, Asian privilege, and so on, and to all of these there tends to be disprivileges as well. However, a lot of the claims surrounding them revolve on false claims and misused facts, and said use of said privileges or disprivileges often revolves around a racist rhetoric wherein one makes false or exaggerated assumptions about people of specific races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

1 hour ago, killelall said:

No they aren't. You are just pro-drug.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

Nope... I'm pro-fact. Drug war is bullshit, and drugs being illegal wouldn't save anyone who was addicted to illegal drugs. It would encourage them to receive help instead of risking jail time for drugs they took, actually. It would save money on incarceration and put it towards rehabilitation.

There's a reason why drugs are both related to racism and a major part of progressive policy -- because the drug war was founded on lies, and racism. To deny such is to deny that oxygen is a part of our respiratory diet.

I am sorry for your unique situation but a war on drugs wouldn't fix that. Equity would, though.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

The claim was innocent black men were being killed. Someone committing a crime is not an innocent man. The victims aren't just upstanding black men being unjustly targeted by police like Johann claimed. The victims were criminals. However, in George Floyd's case this doesn't change that their death was disgusting and unjustified.

Unarmed black men is actually the term I hear more often, but do carry on.

Whether or not a "victim" was perfect doesn't really take away their victim hood. They weren't "innocent" in the sense that they may or may not have committed the crime they were pulled over for, but let's not pretend that he wasn't innocent of whatever he did that caused a death penalty response. You're just playing a semantics game.

EDIT: also he's innocent until proven guilty lol

Quote

However, innocent black men should not expect to be plucked off the street by blood thirty men with badges.

But they do. Because that's what essentially happens, and that's what the system encourages.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

Its not side stepping the issue. Its arguing the importance of accurate analysis so that problems can be solved properly. 

Which part of the analysis is inaccurate?

1 hour ago, killelall said:

Read what I just quoted to see what false assumptions were being made. For example, "Black people deal with extra hurdles throughout their entire lives. To have a practically identical resume as a white person requires the black person to do more or endure worse at nearly every turn." 
Just as a black person can grow up in wealth or poverty, a white person can be as well. Just as a black person may or may not grow up in a broken house, the same applies to a white person. A black and white person may also attend the same schools, receiving the same education. Because someone is black does not mean they will encounter more hurdles at every turn, and just because someone is white doesn't mean they will avoid every hurdle

Just because something can be true doesn't really contradict the broader reality. Do you not know how statistics actually work? Do you not know how studies actually work? Do you not know what disproportionate means? Because the common argument -- and the truth -- is in the term disproportionate.

Quote

Ones race simply means one is statistically more likely to experience something. Not that they are guaranteed to. Johann's narrative made & relied upon a false assumption.

I know the guy. He understands this.

However, there are many things that are simply universal, which have been brought up in this thread. Black names are more likely to be rejected than white names, all else equal. Black & white people convicted of the same crime receive different prison sentences, the latter having relatively reduced ones. Black neighborhoods are far, far more overpoliced (by all measures) than white neighborhoods, and arguably the police work for the latter and work against the former.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

No they don't discredit the points I've made. They prove them. Though, in regards to segregation - your pretending it exists like it did back in the day is rather bogus. Where one lives is largely decided by money... that and the community within a city. (Which is more-so social rather than due to the government.)

I didn't "pretend" like it exists like it did back in the day. I stated that it exists. I didn't pretend anything.

You're ignoring the fact that having a black neighbor or black neighbors reduces the value of your home. Again, will provide a source upon request, but it's as factual as saying water is necessary to live.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

At no point did I attempt to call black people shot by police thugs. I even brought up the black psychologist who was shot, so how about you quit making up lies in a pitiful attempt to discredit me.

I don't think I'm making up lies. A lie implies intention.

But I will say that someone who is quick to emphasize "George Floyd was a druggie" when he got brutally sat on for 8 minutes and 46 seconds really doesn't have their priorities in line. It read as a dogwhistle, really.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

Name some of this recent legislation that still exists.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/january/modern-housing-segregation-in-america.html

https://www.epi.org/publication/modern-segregation/

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/11/modern-day-segregation-in-public-schools/382846/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/segregation-now/359813/

I have better things to do with my time than list out every single piece of legislation, action, and what generally every district does to encourage segregation in their communities and schooling. Do your research, I provided you some links.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

Right. Its not a myth. In a like manner there is black privilege, native privilege, Asian privilege, and so on, and to all of these there tends to be disprivileges as well. However, a lot of the claims surrounding them revolve on false claims and misused facts, and said use of said privileges or disprivileges often revolves around a racist rhetoric wherein one makes false or exaggerated assumptions about people of specific races.

Those privileges exist how? The only example of black privilege I can think of is that minorities aren't valued enough by the US that a terrorist won't take them hostage.

What privileges do black people, native people, asian people, etc have? Immigrant privilege solely comes from the fact that they're already quite successful in their home countries and have means coming into the country. Black wealth started from almost nothing, and continues to be almost nothing and the system encourages such a thing.

I can link you with nothing but articles if you really want to be convinced, but to deny its existence and the pervasiveness of white privilege through our culture and legislation is the same thing as saying that the change in global climate is not accelerated by humanity. The fact that we even have to argue this as a "fact" is just as insane as how people say racism is "just an opinion."

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Drugs being illegal is something that deters people from obtaining them and makes it so they can't be sold & easily obtained. 

It likely wouldn't save money as the government makes a lot of money by prosecuting people, fining them, and so on. Especially areas with revolving door policies wherein drug addicts who pay fines often find that the charges against them are dropped. (Lovely bit of government corruptions.)

The claims regarding drugs and racism tend to revolve accusations of drugs being used to harm the black, with them being imported into predominately black communities. Legalizing them wouldn't solve the problem. It would exasperate it.

Unarmed black men is not what Johann claimed and is not relevant to the discussion as neither Johann nor I said such.

Were not talking about a court of law here. You are the one  arguing semantics. Johann tried to create the narrative that innocent blacks were being victimized by hyper violent police. Such is not the case.

No it doesn't. If it was happening, there'd be FAR fewer African Americans in the U.S., and it would be the normal to hear of such atrocities occurring. However, its not the norm, and when it occurs people tend to be surprised, disgusted, and horrified that something like that would occur.

As for the "Which part of the analysis is inaccurate?" response, it depends what's being argued.

Yeah, I know how statistics work. However, its NOT the broader reality. While blacks suffer a 20% poverty rate, as opposed to whites who suffer a 10% poverty rate, the fact is whites make of the majority when it comes to poor, uneducated, divorced, and so on. A narrative that ignores the existence of the majority is flawed. 

"I didn't "pretend" like it exists like it did back in the day. I stated that it exists. I didn't pretend anything."
You're actively pretending now. That, or you are a clueless kid who doesn't know how much worse things used to be when racism was acceptable. Speak with some people who actually experienced the past. Used to, depending on the color of one's skin, things restaurants not serving one could be the norm.

No I am not ignoring it. That's why I specifically stated money is a deciding factor. If you make good money, you can live elsewhere. This wasn't always an option. The archaisms of segregation still exist; however, one is not bound by it like in the past.

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

I don't think I'm making up lies. A lie implies intention.

But I will say that someone who is quick to emphasize "George Floyd was a druggie" when he got brutally sat on for 8 minutes and 46 seconds really doesn't have their priorities in line. It read as a dogwhistle, really.

Its not a dog whistle. You are just a prejudiced nut job who's deluded yourself into believing police are hyper violent monsters that prey on innocent black men. Again, my point was innocent black men & women shouldn't have to live in fear, and that police aren't the monsters prejudiced nut jobs like you want to believe they are. SOME are disgusting people who have no business being allowed to wear a badge; however, not all of them all of them are the monsters you want to believe they are.

Again, I wouldn't be bringing up a black doctor who went above and beyond the call of duty & was shot if I wanted to push such a narrative. You, on the other hand, do seem to want to push a prejudice narrative.

The first link is a gripe about landlords having an anti-criminal policy. This is not a race based policy. 

The Second link talks about WWII, complaints about the IRS not penalizing churches and whatnot for racist practices, and so on... not laws...

Tracking isn't a segregatory practice in itself. Rather, a specific school is accused of using it for such, and there are concerns others are doing that as well despite the law. However, the article also brings up how the 'no child left behind' act uses tracking to force schools to teach failing children.

The fourth is a pretty good link. Schools no longer being forced to prevent segregation wasn't something I heard of before.

Well, as a native there are tax breaks I can claim, land I can live on that others can't, things I can say in social situations without fear of backlash, scholarships, pride in my heritage, and so on.

Again, I didn't deny the existence thereof. I criticized the false claims about white privilege. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, killelall said:

Unarmed black men is not what Johann claimed and is not relevant to the discussion as neither Johann nor I said such.

I think the question of unarmed or armed is a whole fucking lot more relevant to the discussion than George Floyd's criminal record. He could've robbed a bank and broken the cashier's legs for all I care, there's absolute zero legitimization for him being killed in that situation.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

Yeah, I know how statistics work. However, its NOT the broader reality. While blacks suffer a 20% poverty rate, as opposed to whites who suffer a 10% poverty rate, the fact is whites make of the majority when it comes to poor, uneducated, divorced, and so on. A narrative that ignores the existence of the majority is flawed. 

That's an incredibly weird way to look at percentiles. Or rather, to ignore the percentiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...